HMOs Outsourcing Healthcare, Making International Hospitals "In-Network"

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

econdr

Full Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
337
Reaction score
0
==============
from: http://www.portfolio.com/views/columns/dual-perspectives/2009/03/03/Outsourcing-the-Patient

The Future of Health Care: Outsourcing the Patient

by Rachel Lehmann-Haupt | See Archive
Portfolio.com explores the economic logic behind globalizing the American health-care system.




We rarely associate hip surgery with swaying palms, spas, or a personal concierge who carries your bag. Even more rare is the idea that these amenities are the fringe benefit of a surgery that costs half the price. And what if that surgery took place, not in the U.S., but at a state-of-the-art hospital in India, or Costa Rica, or Thailand? This is the pitch from those that are betting that the future of first-world health-care lies off-shore. When and if you need a hip transplant—or other major surgery—your HMO may steer you to an "in-network" hospital halfway around the world.

The business began 15 years ago when well-heeled patients realized that they could not only hide out in Brazil until their face lifts healed, but they could also nip and tuck their non-elective surgical bills as well. The trend grew as middle-class patients in Canada and Britain who lost patience with the long wait lines in their public health-care systems followed in their footsteps. Now it’s not just the fed-up, adventurous, or rich seeking overseas medical care for themselves. Some big American health insurers are starting to build what they're calling a "globalized health-care services system" for those under their care. In other words, they're looking at outsourcing the ill.

UnitedHealth, which has over 70 million Americans under its care, has already moved to make Bumrungrad International hospital in Bangkok "in network." When Aetna, with 37 million members, bought the overseas insurer Goodhealth Worldwide last year, Aetna's CEO explained the move by saying that globalized surgery is "an important emerging trend." The company has already started a pilot program to send patients abroad for hip and knee replacements.

Surgeons in the United States hate the idea. Yet there is little question that the standard of care in foreign hospitals can be as good as in American hospitals—and some argue that the best off-shore surgical centers are actually better than their American counterparts. Dubai Healthcare City is a brand-new, state-of-the-art development that, when completed next year, will include 17 separate hospitals, each devoted to its own specialty. All of them are closely affiliated with Harvard. Surgeons there are well-trained, U.S. board-certified, and performing with impressively low morbidity rates. Mumbai; Seoul, South Korea; Istanbul, Turkey; Xinjiang, China; and Islamabad, Pakistan, also have Harvard-affiliated hospitals, although the complex in Dubai is the most ambitious by far.

For insurers who want to outsource, the main question is how to convince patients to hop a 25-hour flight for a triple bypass. "We need to create incentives ," says David Boucher, the founding CEO of Companion Global Health, a new division of Blue Cross Blue Shield of South Carolina, that is billing itself as the "one-stop shop" of global surgery. "We're going to have to waive co-payments and deductibles in addition to booking all the travel arrangements." A May 2008 McKinsey study found that currently around 20 percent of the 40 million in-patient admissions in the U.S. are well-suited for the better value of medical travel. The study found that 500,000 to 700,000 patients who want to save more than $10,000 are the most realistic candidates for off-shoring—and they estimate a total savings of $33 billion. Its advocates see globalized health care as the "disruptive innovation" needed to control costs in the U.S. health-care system.

Not all medical economists are so pleased with the multibillion-dollar windfall such a system might represent, however. They argue that the focus ought to be on fixing the American system (and our bodies) on a deeper level, at home, through integrated health-care systems built around preventative care and managing diseases. The real way to save money, argues Linda Green, a health-care expert and professor at Columbia Business School, is by re-directing incentives to focus preventative care, so that "problems don’t escalate into expensive hospital stays and surgeries" in the first place. Outsourcing expensive surgery just compounds the problem we already have, she argues, "since there is virtually no continuity in care."

Others—including Clayton M. Christensen, a professor at Harvard Business School and the author of a new book, The Innovators Prescription: A Disruptive Solution for Healthcare—respectfully disagree. They see the off-shoring of surgery as the way for HMOs to wean hospitals and physicians off the idea of surgery-as-profit-centers and onto preventative care and disease management. And besides, with advances in communication technologies, who's to say that a patient's primary-care physician stateside can't be intimately (albeit virtually) involved in these off-shore surgeries?

===========================


This is a really interesting article I just happened upon. It makes sense for call centers, but.. are we going to have to compete with surgeons in India and China in 10 years?

Members don't see this ad.
 
i guess you can outsource anything these days.
 
Ugh, make it stop please. When are people going to start rioting in the streets over their terrible, terrible insurance plans. When they show up at your door with a taxi ready to take you to the airport to go to India for dialysis?
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I agree. HMOs have done enough to lower the quality of health care. I don't think many people would stand for HMOs cutting costs by sending patients to Mexico City for "equivalent" health care...

It's a 20/20 special waiting to happen...
 
Sorry fellas, I don't see too much wrong with this.

If someone does it faster/better/cheaper, more power to 'em. That's the way it goes. If you don't believe me, go look in your driveway. I can pretty much guarantee that somebody in this thread is pimpin' a Toyota or Subaru or something.

This might be a great way to get our healthcare system to have more upfront pricing, quality measurements and so on and so forth. If it causes our hospitals to find ways to bring down their costs, which in turn makes insurance more affordable, what's the problem with that?

The first Economist from Columbia touches on an important point: We need to re-evaluate whether or not we have a "healthcare" crisis or more of a "health" crisis on our hands because they're 2 different things.
 
Sorry fellas, I don't see too much wrong with this.

If someone does it faster/better/cheaper, more power to 'em. That's the way it goes. If you don't believe me, go look in your driveway. I can pretty much guarantee that somebody in this thread is pimpin' a Toyota or Subaru or something.

This might be a great way to get our healthcare system to have more upfront pricing, quality measurements and so on and so forth. If it causes our hospitals to find ways to bring down their costs, which in turn makes insurance more affordable, what's the problem with that?

The first Economist from Columbia touches on an important point: We need to re-evaluate whether or not we have a "healthcare" crisis or more of a "health" crisis on our hands because they're 2 different things.

I see what you are saying. The future doctor in me is saying "why god why??", but the economist in me thinks this makes a lot of sense. As soon as we get reliable enough fiber optic connections I'm sure we'll have surgeons in Hong Kong doing operations in SF with the daVinci surgical system.

One thing I learned in econ was that Americans lose more jobs each year due to advancing technology than to immigration. It's the technology that makes us less in demand.
 
I see what you are saying. The future doctor in me is saying "why god why??", but the economist in me thinks this makes a lot of sense. As soon as we get reliable enough fiber optic connections I'm sure we'll have surgeons in Hong Kong doing operations in SF with the daVinci surgical system.

One thing I learned in econ was that Americans lose more jobs each year due to advancing technology than to immigration. It's the technology that makes us less in demand.

That being said; if these issues seriously concern you, consider a career in primary care or emergency medicine. Technology will be hard pressed to replace these two functions of the medical community at any point in our lifetime.
 
Waving co-pays and deductibles amounts to an unwelcome financial coercion on patients, essentially forcing them into this outsourced environment. Answer me this -- are they also willing to finance the accommodations for family or other support network? What happens when there are complications and granny does not come home after being forced to travel to BFE to have her elective surgery? For those who like to use Econ 101 principles to justify or otherwise rationalize this extortive practice I say this: you are taking a microeconomic position when the crux of the problem is that of a macroeconomic nature.
 
Waving co-pays and deductibles amounts to an unwelcome financial coercion on patients, essentially forcing them into this outsourced environment. Answer me this -- are they also willing to finance the accommodations for family or other support network? What happens when there are complications and granny does not come home after being forced to travel to BFE to have her elective surgery? For those who like to use Econ 101 principles to justify or otherwise rationalize this extortive practice I say this: you are taking a microeconomic position when the crux of the problem is that of a macroeconomic nature.


There are positives and negatives to any decision you make. How is offering a lower cost option for an elective procedure extortion? Looking at their price-list, it seems like you could easily bring a spouse along for the ride @ considerable savings. If granny doesn't come home; are you asking about legal concerns or the difficulties with families understanding what happened?
 
Here's a plausible reason why doing this could offer the same quality of care for a reduced price.

1. The labor is cheaper. Yes, the physicians can have equivalent training and experience but work for less because they are trapped in the medical system of one of these foreign countries. They can't move to the U.S. without paying out the nose in opportunity costs. And, moreover, all of the rest of the hospital staff works for a lot less....Nurses, orderlies, janitors, everyone.

2. The liability is less. No HIPAA, and countless other regulations to follow that can cost a fortune but do nothing to improve patient care.

3. You are paying for them to treat you, not you + three uninsured patients in the beds next to you. This is huge, and a big reason for the obscenely inflated costs of hospital care here.

Even then, the hospital could still have the same equipment and technology used at a decent institution in the U.S., and employ surgeons who have as much operative experience as a mid-range surgeon here in the U.S., if not more.

Of course, of course, "buyer beware". But, it's entirely possible that at least some of these hospitals are offering an equivalent or better product for half the cost.

I would hope that the HMOs in question carefully investigate these foreign hospitals, and find that ones that are this good. Even if it costs them a little more, it's still a huge cost savings
 
There are positives and negatives to any decision you make. How is offering a lower cost option for an elective procedure extortion? Looking at their price-list, it seems like you could easily bring a spouse along for the ride @ considerable savings. If granny doesn't come home; are you asking about legal concerns or the difficulties with families understanding what happened?

The offering of a "lower cost" alternative is not extortionary -- the coercion is in the waiving of the fee and deductible portion, essentially strong-arming the patient in a time of the proliferation of high-deductible plans.

See Habeed's post above -- he adresses why costs are lower (currently) in lesser developed countries -- in large part because they are not bound by the same regulatory environment and do not face the same costs that we do stateside. Quality is not so much the issue in the places sited; similarly trained individuals of similar quality practicing out of equivalent facilities with equivalent support staff should equal similar outcomes; likewise, if these facilities cater largely to elective procedures in healthy individuals, it is only natural to assume that their relative complication rate will be below that of a general use facility here at home.

The proliferation of this trend, which is only beginning, stems in part from the court decision limiting HMO's liability. Thus, the legal repercussions are a consideration, but likely not the one envisioned.

Costs must be contained, and I believe that everyone agrees on that point. The single largest line cost item is payroll; to curb this one must either cut jobs and / pay. The same labor cost problems facing American industry also faces healthcare (albeit to a lesser extent). This problem has the potential of fixing itself through normal market forces, but this has not been allowed to happen through governmental interference and manipulation.

What we really work for is purchasing power, not a $/hr figure. Purchasing power is relative to what everyone else in society is earning; if we were to allow the deflationary cycle to work its way through the system and everyone took a corresponding haircut at the same time, our purchasing power should change by a lesser amount relative to our W2 AGI decrease.... of course that would mean less tax revenues for the beast, so we cannot allow that to happen.

The definition of "elective" should also be reexamined. Breast augs = elective; try to find a hip or knee candidate who would agree that their condition falls under the same category.
 
Last edited:
What we really work for is purchasing power, not a $/hr figure. Purchasing power is relative to what everyone else in society is earning; if we were to allow the deflationary cycle to work its way through the system and everyone took a corresponding haircut at the same time, our purchasing power should change by a lesser amount relative to our W2 AGI decrease.... of course that would mean less tax revenues for the beast, so we cannot allow that to happen.

Wow, well put. 👍👍
 
"The Beast" (feds) has to deal with purchasing power as well.

Actually, the problem with deflation is that most loans don't work if there is negative inflation. A loan at 5% interest has a real interest rate of 2% if the annual inflation rate is 3%, which is about the average for the last 20 years.

If there is 2% deflation, suddenly that loan has a real interest rate of 7%. That's a gigantic financial difference.

The entire economy is one giant interconnected web of loans made to each other. Even the people doing the lending (banks) in turn owe money to someone else. Rich or poor, everyone doing any real economic activity makes loans or lends money. So, you will be affected by deflation even if you have no personal debt.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I understand the mechanisms that make hospitals overseas cheaper to operate than here in the States. I also understand how forcing people overseas for surgeries we are capable of performing here seems excessive. My point was that hopefully it will drive some innovation and improvement in our own system which will benefit patients.
 
I'm sure patients will always have the option of doing the surgery at home. If I had to get a serious procedure done, and the HMO offered to do the operation in southern thailand after which I could recover in the beautiful islands down there, I would probably be fine with it as long as I was assured that I wouldn't come home with a kidney missing (unless that was the purpose of the procedure :laugh:)....
 
"The Beast" (feds) has to deal with purchasing power as well.

Actually, the problem with deflation is that most loans don't work if there is negative inflation. A loan at 5% interest has a real interest rate of 2% if the annual inflation rate is 3%, which is about the average for the last 20 years.

If there is 2% deflation, suddenly that loan has a real interest rate of 7%. That's a gigantic financial difference.

The entire economy is one giant interconnected web of loans made to each other. Even the people doing the lending (banks) in turn owe money to someone else. Rich or poor, everyone doing any real economic activity makes loans or lends money. So, you will be affected by deflation even if you have no personal debt.


Habeed,

That is why debt is toxic and to be avoided when possible. Debt is an anchor that never reaches bottom, and we are all trying to stay afloat. True, deflation will touch everyone; the flip side is that renders assets more affordable to those with access to capital. Falling home prices are only bad if you have a large debt and find yourself "underwater", drowning from your own personal debt anchor (yet another reason to require a 20% down payment for home purchases).
 
Habeed,

That is why debt is toxic and to be avoided when possible. Debt is an anchor that never reaches bottom, and we are all trying to stay afloat. True, deflation will touch everyone; the flip side is that renders assets more affordable to those with access to capital. Falling home prices are only bad if you have a large debt and find yourself "underwater", drowning from your own personal debt anchor (yet another reason to require a 20% down payment for home purchases).

Debt is not toxic. Without debt, you could never buy a home, never start a business, and you wouldn't afford medical school.

Debt is a tool that should be used wisely.
 
I'm sure patients will always have the option of doing the surgery at home. If I had to get a serious procedure done, and the HMO offered to do the operation in southern thailand after which I could recover in the beautiful islands down there, I would probably be fine with it as long as I was assured that I wouldn't come home with a kidney missing (unless that was the purpose of the procedure :laugh:)....

I'm not sure that it is appropriate to say that patients "have the choice" when copays and deductibles are being waived. If you have a $2500 or $5000 deductible and make $14/hr, that equates to one or two months' take home pay.
 
I'm not sure that it is appropriate to say that patients "have the choice" when copays and deductibles are being waived. If you have a $2500 or $5000 deductible and make $14/hr, that equates to one or two months' take home pay.

You are correct. It would unfairly target the poor...
 
But what if it makes the difference between getting the surgery or not? We'd all want it to be more affordable so all contributing members of society have access to these procedures. But in the short term, while the system is still adjusting towards that goal (HOPEFULLY), what's wrong with this being an option for those who are willing?
 
Habeed,

That is why debt is toxic and to be avoided when possible.

What I'm getting at is that there are lots of ways that lending can go badly, but for a lot of reasons there really isn't any other known way to run the economy. Thus, even highly successful people and businesses are going to be affected by deflation effectively raising interest rates.
 
I agree. HMOs have done enough to lower the quality of health care. I don't think many people would stand for HMOs cutting costs by sending patients to Mexico City for "equivalent" health care...

It's a 20/20 special waiting to happen...


I agree that HMOs have really lowered the quality of health care.


http://ceowellness.com/ helps you to work efficiently.
 
Debt is not toxic. Without debt, you could never buy a home, never start a business, and you wouldn't afford medical school.

Debt is a tool that should be used wisely.

Incorrect.... debt, much like chemotherapy, is quite toxic.... unfortunately, it is also necessary for the vast majority of us. We should not confuse the two. What Habeed and I are saying reflects the risk and uncertainty that even well structured debt exposed an entity to. Even when you do everything "right" as determined by the rules and economic climate of the day, you run the significant and real risk that someone, or something, will come along and change the rules or environment midstream, leaving you open to all of the bad things that they hammer on CNBC every single hour of the day....
 
What I'm getting at is that there are lots of ways that lending can go badly, but for a lot of reasons there really isn't any other known way to run the economy. Thus, even highly successful people and businesses are going to be affected by deflation effectively raising interest rates.

Agreed, we are saying the same thing... debt is a necessary, but problematic....
 
Incorrect.... debt, much like chemotherapy, is quite toxic.... unfortunately, it is also necessary for the vast majority of us. We should not confuse the two. What Habeed and I are saying reflects the risk and uncertainty that even well structured debt exposed an entity to. Even when you do everything "right" as determined by the rules and economic climate of the day, you run the significant and real risk that someone, or something, will come along and change the rules or environment midstream, leaving you open to all of the bad things that they hammer on CNBC every single hour of the day....

I respectfully disagree. I spent years studying debt, working in various analyst positions, and I think that its only dangerous if you don't understand it. If you are imprudent then debt can be extremely toxic. But if you understnad what you are signing and know the risks and what you are up against, then you shouldn't have much to worry about.

Credit card debt is toxic. So is loan shark debt, and neg am option arms. But a 30 year mortgage at 5% used to buy a moderately priced home is certainly not.
 
I respectfully disagree. I spent years studying debt, working in various analyst positions, and I think that its only dangerous if you don't understand it. If you are imprudent then debt can be extremely toxic. But if you understnad what you are signing and know the risks and what you are up against, then you shouldn't have much to worry about.

Credit card debt is toxic. So is loan shark debt, and neg am option arms. But a 30 year mortgage at 5% used to buy a moderately priced home is certainly not.

...unless you lose your job, or get sick, or the house loses value, or they change your property taxes to a point where you can't afford your payment, or your insurance spikes, or a disaster takes the house...

I know a whole load of people down here in Miami with 5% mortgages, that require less than 30% of take home pay at the time of borrowing, at fixed rates that are still hurting in this economy.

Even the most benign debts can have toxic side effects. That doesn't mean that you should never borrow money. People rarely get wealthy without some leverage, but you've got to know that you're dancing with the devil when you do.
 
People do not want to have major surgery overseas for the most part. The ongoing profitability of this endeavor also requires the following:

1. Ongoing cheap travel
2. An ongoing peaceful travel environment
3. Economic stability within the countries providing the services
4. Maintenance of the relative value of US currency
5. Other nations having both the skilled manpower and required facilities to accomadate a large influx of foreign surgical patients.

I doubt that all of these factors will remain in place for much longer, especially number 4.

On top of that, it would be interesting to do a study on rates of DVT in all of these ortho cases that get to sit on a plane for hours before and after their surgeries. The travel time alone makes this unfeasable for cases that don't require extensive recovery time, and the types of cases that do require extensive recovery come with higher risks of morbidity and mortality. The problem with surgery is that people can die, and any kind of pushed incentive to get people to have cheap surgery in Brazil, or Thailand, or Dubai will be the target of every news report in the country when people inevitably die, equivalent or not.

I can see it now, "Man forced to have lung surgery in Sao Paolo dies in Brazilian hospital. Bob Smith, 67, died from a pneumonia two days after having a lobectomy to try and remove a cancer of the lung. His family was unable to be with him before his death. They have no way to evaluate quality control or legal recourse. Lawmakers are questioning the practice of giving incentives to people to have overseas surgery....."

It's not politically feasable on a large scale, and the only things that make it economically feasable are in fact political.
 
...unless you lose your job, or get sick, or the house loses value, or they change your property taxes to a point where you can't afford your payment, or your insurance spikes, or a disaster takes the house...

I know a whole load of people down here in Miami with 5% mortgages, that require less than 30% of take home pay at the time of borrowing, at fixed rates that are still hurting in this economy.

Even the most benign debts can have toxic side effects. That doesn't mean that you should never borrow money. People rarely get wealthy without some leverage, but you've got to know that you're dancing with the devil when you do.

Yes there are always risks. I remember from my hedge fund days that hazard insurance in FL and some parts of TX was in the tens of thousands of dollars for a 250k home. We stopped buying there when we did our diligence. Taxes where I live in CA are capped at 1.25% maximum increase year over year unless the property changes hands. But you are right, bad things do happen with leverage, earthquakes, fires, lightning strikes, etc. But good things happen too. Without debt NOBODY could ever afford a home or a med school education. So I guess its how you look at it all... The only other option is being independently wealthy.
 
I respectfully disagree. I spent years studying debt, working in various analyst positions, and I think that its only dangerous if you don't understand it. If you are imprudent then debt can be extremely toxic. But if you understnad what you are signing and know the risks and what you are up against, then you shouldn't have much to worry about.

Credit card debt is toxic. So is loan shark debt, and neg am option arms. But a 30 year mortgage at 5% used to buy a moderately priced home is certainly not.

...we are speaking to the same end, with relative disagreement on the inherent risks apparently. My premise remains -- it is quite difficult to "understand" the risks of debt without the backdrop of a certain, stable economic environment (which we no longer have and was never a guarantee). Even "prudent" indebtedness can, and often does, become an anchor when someone changes the rules midstream. I also agree that debt is unfortunately necessary for the vast majority of us; that does not mean that we should embrace it as freely as what has been considered the norm since Volcker slayed inflation in the mid '80's. Borrowing money, even at 5% (although most were higher than that) for an asset that historically barely keeps ahead of inflation (i.e. since we are using housing as an example... an asset class that blew up into a crazy bubble and was recognized several years ago, particularly in the Sunbelt states), without a significant down payment and strong capital reserves, constitutes an inherently risky, and imprudent, proposition.
 
Borrowing money, even at 5% (although most were higher than that) for an asset that historically barely keeps ahead of inflation (i.e. since we are using housing as an example... an asset class that blew up into a crazy bubble and was recognized several years ago, particularly in the Sunbelt states), without a significant down payment and strong capital reserves, constitutes an inherently risky, and imprudent, proposition.

I agree, but that's why I said a moderately priced home. I don't consider anything moderately priced if we are in the midst of an asset bubble. I see your point, though. Unless you can predict the future you never know what is in store. Even if I was to buy a home that has depreciated 40% in a southern california neighborhood that has good organic demand (demand based on jobs and desirability rather than speculation), there could be a 9.0 earthquake that destroys the neighborhood, bankrupts the already undercapitalized insurers, causes real estate prices to plumment and further throws our economy into (another) tailspin.

Who knows? But at any rate, I try to be optimistic 🙂

Here's to finding that balance between optimism and prudence, so we can make the right decisions in this uncertain world.

😀😀😀
 
A couple of comments : only a very small number of Americans are "independently wealthy" ( I'd say you need to have at least 2-3 million in assets in todays dollars to be considered that)

And, how can you get to be independently wealthy? I don't know very many paths that don't require you to borrow money at some point of the process. I really can't think of any, actually. Even if you had a full tuition scholarship to med or law school, you probably have to borrow money to open your own clinic/law practice.

Second, has anyone considered that these real estate risks are worse if you have your own money sunk into the property rather than the bank's money? After all, if a flood or a real estate crash wipes out your house's value, you can declare bankruptcy and walk away. You can shield a good deal of your assets from being seized in bankruptcy. For this reason and others, it would not surprise me if even multi-millionaires didn't sometimes buy houses on credit, keeping their money elsewhere in a form with more liquidity.
 
Top